Abortion and the "soul"

[agnosticatheist]

At what point does the human fetus acquire a soul?

Until brain activity starts, the human fetus is technically just a non-conscious, non-sentient life form.

The hypothetical soul is what supposedly makes us human and "makes us special from the rest of the animal world". I think it is fair to say that everything that is claimed to be a function of the soul (consciousness/awareness, emotions, moral reasoning) are not possible without the brain.

If the human fetus does indeed acquire a soul when brain activity starts, then why is it wrong to abort the fetus before brain activity starts? It's nothing special before the brain activity starts. Sure, it has its own unique DNA. It is a functioning organism. But, the same could be said of a housefly, crocodile, etc. If any such organisms were presenting a problem, I would guess theists would have no objection to them being terminated...

[dianaiad]

This god puts a natural process in place that has a 70% chance of the fetus not coming to term, but if a person were to choose to not have a fetus, all hell breaks loose.

So....this makes it acceptable to kill the survivors?

I mean, really?

I can imagine this argument in the murder trial of a sniper who killed the three villagers who made it through a mine field untouched.

"Your honor, it's OK to kill these three; after all, everybody else in their group got blown up!"

I've never been able to understand this argument.

This is one of those cases where the analogy does not really hold up because of the details.

The difference between fetuses that make it to the first month and the three villagers in your scenario is that the three villagers have brain activity, have a personality, memories, experiences, feelings, (according to some) soul, etc.

those villagers who got blown up don't have those things any more....only the survivors do. As well, had those who died NOT died, they too would have all those things.

If the only thing keeping a fetus from developing brain activity is death, then I think it is despicable to argue that it is permissible to kill the fetus BECAUSE it lacks brain activity.

It is the 'orphan' defense. You know the one, where the man who murdered his parents pleads for mercy because he's an orphan?

Let's get an analogy closer to 'real life,' here.

In the world of business, if someone is refused a loan because of his bad credit....but his credit is bad because the lender he applied to falsely reported negative information to the credit agencies, he can sue.

Not only can he sue, he'll win.

Excusing killing a human because he lacks brain function, when the reason for killing him or her is to prevent that brain function from happening, is illogical, is immoral, and quite probably one of the most cynical and sophist arguments for abortion I can imagine. The other one is the 'well, so many fetuses die before birth naturally; that makes it OK to kill off the survivors."

[agnosticatheist]

Excusing killing a human because he lacks brain function, when the reason for killing him or her is to prevent that brain function from happening

I never said that is the reason for killing them.

Theists want to argue that humans are separate and special. They want to argue we have a soul. They want to argue that what makes us special emanates from that soul.

The soul is a shaky concept at best to begin with, but, granting the theists their premises of there being a soul, humans being special, and what makes humans special emanating from the soul, the only time that we could determine that the human fetus in question might potentially have a soul, is when brain activity starts.

Until brain activity starts, there is technically nothing special about that fetus.

Until brain activity starts, there is no way to know if it might have a soul or not.

Any contention that the fetus has a soul before brain activity starts is merely speculation and assumption.

The other one is the 'well, so many fetuses die before birth naturally; that makes it OK to kill off the survivors."

If a fetus is aborted before that first month mark, do you think it's less of an issue?

[dianaiad]

Excusing killing a human because he lacks brain function, when the reason for killing him or her is to prevent that brain function from happening

I never said that is the reason for killing them.

Of course it is. The reason a woman aborts is to prevent the birth of a living child. Unless it is to save her own life, that IS the reason.

Theists want to argue that humans are separate and special. They want to argue we have a soul. They want to argue that what makes us special emanates from that soul.

DO they, then? I'm a theist. I believe that all living things have spirits and are souls. So now what? I think you can see that if the belief is that everything has a spirit, then the same arguments apply as if nothing did. There is no 'separation' because of that reason, certainly.

The soul is a shaky concept at best to begin with, but, granting the theists their premises of there being a soul, humans being special, and what makes humans special emanating from the soul, the only time that we could determine that the human fetus in question might potentially have a soul, is when brain activity starts.

Why? That doesn't follow at all. Nor is it applicable. My opposition to abortion isn't about the 'soul,' anyway.

Until brain activity starts, there is technically nothing special about that fetus.

Until brain activity starts, there is no way to know if it might have a soul or not.

Any contention that the fetus has a soul before brain activity starts is merely speculation and assumption.

The other one is the 'well, so many fetuses die before birth naturally; that makes it OK to kill off the survivors."

If a fetus is aborted before that first month mark, do you think it's less of an issue?

I believe that the life of that specific individual begins at conception. Doesn't matter when it gets a spirit and becomes a 'soul,' That argument is as illogical as the one about brain function; killing it before it gets one (either spirit or brain function) being excused because it has neither?

I find that argument to be nauseatingly despicable, to be honest.

A conceptus doesn't have a LOT of rights...human assigned rights go with age, generally. However, I do believe that it should have one, basic, right; the right to try to survive without having that effort made utterly futile.

The right to not be killed simply because it exists.

[Clownboat]

This god puts a natural process in place that has a 70% chance of the fetus not coming to term, but if a person were to choose to not have a fetus, all hell breaks loose.

So....this makes it acceptable to kill the survivors?

I mean, really?

I can imagine this argument in the murder trial of a sniper who killed the three villagers who made it through a mine field untouched.

"Your honor, it's OK to kill these three; after all, everybody else in their group got blown up!"

I've never been able to understand this argument.

No Dianaiad. Just because a person may believe that a god of some sort was behind the birth process that results in 70% not making it to term, you are not allowed to kill the survivors.

That is not the point. Try to understand the argument from this point of view:
- "Abortion is murder, my god that created a process that aborts 70% naturally (obviously, this part is ALWAYS left out) is going to send you to hell for doing it on your own. When you do it, you kill a soul, but let's not even address the souls of the 70%.

You see, this in not about trying to justify killing more fetuses or survivors and that is why you have never been able to understand this point I must assume.

I'm pointing out to a poster who I can only assume was unaware of the 70% stat, that abortions happen more often then they don't and that he is choosing to believe in a god that is behind said process. I personally think that anyone that is going to rail against abortions for religious reasons (soul) should be aware of this stat to help put the situation in perspective.

I'm tired of hearing the "murder" claims, or the "you are destroying a soul" claims when it comes from people that choose to believe in a god that created a process that aborts 70% naturally. Why is this so hard to understand and how does pointing that out equal killing survivors?

[AdHoc]

As to the subject of your post. I tend towards the idea that the fetus technically becomes a soul when it begins receiving oxygen via the mother's body. Having said that I still do not believe abortion is a valid option at any stage from conception on. Two major reasons for this. 1) If left go the mother's body would in nearly every instance carry the fetus to term despite the mother's wishes. Yes, there are instances when this is not so and the fetus is miscarried, again, despite the mother's wishes. This, to me, clearly shows nature's, or nature's God's, intent.

I know facts can be unfortunate, but it seems your view on the subject is based off of a falsehood. Perhaps a re-think is in order?

In general, less than 70% of all fertilized eggs will even implant into the mother's womb causing pregnancy to continue. From there, there is a 25-50% chance of aborting before you even know you are pregnant. If, however, you make it to your first month, your odds go up to 75% chance of carrying to term. So if you look at it from the point of all those little souls being given a home, only to be miscarried before they even know they are alive, that's a very mean God.
Scientific research has compiled the following information about the rates of naturally aborted pregnancies in human beings.

Over several trials, this concludes that around 70% of all zygotes fail to be carried to term.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneou ... _in_humans

I am not a fan of abortions, but to dislike the idea for religious reasons is very odd to me, considering the fact that the process this god chose for making babies results in about 70% of them being aborted naturally.

what is the religious reason you are referring to? Are you not aware that there are non-religious reasons for disliking abortion?

This god puts a natural process in place that has a 70% chance of the fetus not coming to term, but if a person were to choose to not have a fetus, all hell breaks loose.

thats an interesting tact to take. You're equating miscarriage with abortion? Do you then equate senescence with murder?

[Clownboat]

As to the subject of your post. I tend towards the idea that the fetus technically becomes a soul when it begins receiving oxygen via the mother's body. Having said that I still do not believe abortion is a valid option at any stage from conception on. Two major reasons for this. 1) If left go the mother's body would in nearly every instance carry the fetus to term despite the mother's wishes. Yes, there are instances when this is not so and the fetus is miscarried, again, despite the mother's wishes. This, to me, clearly shows nature's, or nature's God's, intent.

I know facts can be unfortunate, but it seems your view on the subject is based off of a falsehood. Perhaps a re-think is in order?

In general, less than 70% of all fertilized eggs will even implant into the mother's womb causing pregnancy to continue. From there, there is a 25-50% chance of aborting before you even know you are pregnant. If, however, you make it to your first month, your odds go up to 75% chance of carrying to term. So if you look at it from the point of all those little souls being given a home, only to be miscarried before they even know they are alive, that's a very mean God.
Scientific research has compiled the following information about the rates of naturally aborted pregnancies in human beings.

Over several trials, this concludes that around 70% of all zygotes fail to be carried to term.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneou ... _in_humans

I am not a fan of abortions, but to dislike the idea for religious reasons is very odd to me, considering the fact that the process this god chose for making babies results in about 70% of them being aborted naturally.

what is the religious reason you are referring to? Are you not aware that there are non-religious reasons for disliking abortion?

There are many. For this reason, I was not referring to just one, so your question is un-answerable. Let me know if you can truly not think of any.

Of course I am aware of non-religious reasons for disliking abortion. Did you not read the part of my post where I even said I was not a fan? I bolded it for you this time. Obviously, I don't like the idea of it for reasons that are not religious. Either way, the 70% stat is irrelevant for the people that dislike it for non religious reasons. This should have been apparent I would have thought.

This god puts a natural process in place that has a 70% chance of the fetus not coming to term, but if a person were to choose to not have a fetus, all hell breaks loose.

thats an interesting tact to take. You're equating miscarriage with abortion? Do you then equate senescence with murder?

Spontaneous abortion: A miscarriage , that is, any pregnancy that is not viable (the fetus cannot survive) or in which the fetus is born before the 20th week of pregnancy.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art ... ekey=17774

As you can see, I am correct to equate miscarriage with abortion here. I'm not surprised to see you go the semantics route rather then deal with the implications though.

[AdHoc]

As to the subject of your post. I tend towards the idea that the fetus technically becomes a soul when it begins receiving oxygen via the mother's body. Having said that I still do not believe abortion is a valid option at any stage from conception on. Two major reasons for this. 1) If left go the mother's body would in nearly every instance carry the fetus to term despite the mother's wishes. Yes, there are instances when this is not so and the fetus is miscarried, again, despite the mother's wishes. This, to me, clearly shows nature's, or nature's God's, intent.

I know facts can be unfortunate, but it seems your view on the subject is based off of a falsehood. Perhaps a re-think is in order?

In general, less than 70% of all fertilized eggs will even implant into the mother's womb causing pregnancy to continue. From there, there is a 25-50% chance of aborting before you even know you are pregnant. If, however, you make it to your first month, your odds go up to 75% chance of carrying to term. So if you look at it from the point of all those little souls being given a home, only to be miscarried before they even know they are alive, that's a very mean God.
Scientific research has compiled the following information about the rates of naturally aborted pregnancies in human beings.

Over several trials, this concludes that around 70% of all zygotes fail to be carried to term.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneou ... _in_humans

I am not a fan of abortions, but to dislike the idea for religious reasons is very odd to me, considering the fact that the process this god chose for making babies results in about 70% of them being aborted naturally.

what is the religious reason you are referring to? Are you not aware that there are non-religious reasons for disliking abortion?

There are many. For this reason, I was not referring to just one, so your question is un-answerable. Let me know if you can truly not think of any.

I can only think of one; "thou shalt not murder" are there really others? "Many" even?

Of course I am aware of non-religious reasons for disliking abortion. Did you not read the part of my post where I even said I was not a fan? I bolded it for you this time. Obviously, I don't like the idea of it for reasons that are not religious. Either way, the 70% stat is irrelevant for the people that dislike it for non religious reasons. This should have been apparent I would have thought.

What are the reasons that you dislike abortion for? Or would you prefer not to share them?

This god puts a natural process in place that has a 70% chance of the fetus not coming to term, but if a person were to choose to not have a fetus, all hell breaks loose.

thats an interesting tact to take. You're equating miscarriage with abortion? Do you then equate senescence with murder?

Spontaneous abortion: A miscarriage , that is, any pregnancy that is not viable (the fetus cannot survive) or in which the fetus is born before the 20th week of pregnancy.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art ... ekey=17774

As you can see, I am correct to equate miscarriage with abortion here.

I don't agree that they are the same thing at all. Let me be more specific in my comparison... Lets say two fetuses survives to term, no miscarriages, no abortions. And the children grow to the age of one day old. One dies from complications and one is murdered. Are those two results the same thing?

I think not.

I'm not surprised to see you go the semantics route rather then deal with the implications though.

Why are you not surprised? Is it because you know me really well or does nothing surprise you anymore?

[instantc]

I'm tired of hearing the "murder" claims, or the "you are destroying a soul" claims when it comes from people that choose to believe in a god that created a process that aborts 70% naturally. Why is this so hard to understand and how does pointing that out equal killing survivors?

If aborting a fetus equals to murder, then surely the fact that God has allegedly created such a world where it happens naturally does not justify us doing it as well, does it? So why is this "point" that you are making even relevant to the question of whether abortion is justified?

The fact that you are tired of hearing something does not constitute an argument, frankly it's just an unnecessary whine.

[Bust Nak]

those villagers who got blown up don't have those things any more....only the survivors do. As well, had those who died NOT died, they too would have all those things.

Note the phrase "any more." Those villagers were not prevented from becoming a person. Had they have not died, they would still have all those things. The same cannot be said for fetuses.

If the only thing keeping a fetus from developing brain activity is death, then I think it is despicable to argue that it is permissible to kill the fetus BECAUSE it lacks brain activity.

Well, I can understand why any argument for convenient abortion would be despicable to you, but what's wrong with the logic itself?

It is the 'orphan' defense. You know the one, where the man who murdered his parents pleads for mercy because he's an orphan?

I don't see how. Explain the analogy, bearing in mind what I said above.

In the world of business, if someone is refused a loan because of his bad credit....but his credit is bad because the lender he applied to falsely reported negative information to the credit agencies, he can sue.

And that is analogious to the debate how? What exactly are you think that we are falsely reporting? That the fetus have no mind?

Excusing killing a human because he lacks brain function, when the reason for killing him or her is to prevent that brain function from happening, is illogical, is immoral, and quite probably one of the most cynical and sophist arguments for abortion I can imagine.

Cynical and immoral? At least I can understand where you are coming from with that. But what's so illogical/sophist about that?

The other one is the 'well, so many fetuses die before birth naturally; that makes it OK to kill off the survivors."

That's an argument against using God as an authority, not an agrument for abortion.

So why is this "point" that you are making even relevant to the question of whether abortion is justified?

It is to point out the hypocricy of using God's commandment as an argument against abortion, when God is arguably responsible for far more abortions. It's a do as i say not as i do argument.

[Danmark]

At what point does the human fetus acquire a soul?...

At five months and it's called 'consciousness.'
Based on my own observations and discussions with other parents, somewhere around 5 months after birth babies seem to take a quantum leap of some kind, becoming 'people' and interacting in a new way.

Of course, no one really knows because we have trouble defining consciousness or when it emerges. As the author of this article points out even teenagers frequently don't appear to know why they've done something stupid. When asked, they demonstrate a blank face and "I dunno" is the common answer.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ess-arise/

Most of us have to really stretch to come up with a memory that goes back farther than the age of 3 years, but have rich memories of events and thoughts we had at age 5 and on.